BY TERRESA MONROE-HAMILTON
You betcha! When I heard this statement from Obama yesterday, all I could think was ‘here it comes.’ He will use the FCC to do his dirty work and in moves that look a lot like the Fairness Doctrine, when Net Neutrality kicks in, they will start by censoring the Internet. Conservative media such as Fox News and Drudge will be hit first and it will go something like this I bet… either provide opposing views on an issue equally or get fined and/or shut down. It will be de facto censorship. After they are done with the big boys, they will come for big blogs and then the little guys. I saw this coming long ago.
For going on seven years we have learned three things about President Obama: 1) He loves the poor so much he continues to create more of them. 2) He loves the poor so much he does everything in his power to keep them poor. 3) He doesn’t see the opposition as loyal, but as bad players — his enemy. This is especially true of Fox News, which Obama ripped as anti-poor bigots during a Wednesday afternoon summit on poverty.
We’re used to this Obama, the forever-partisan who has never seen himself as president of all the people but only of those who worship him.
What was most revealing about the president’s comments was his expressed desire to “change how the media reports.”
Speaking of Fox News, the poor, and the way GOP leaders think, Obama said, [W]e’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues.”
Here is the full transcript:
I think that the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. And look, it’s still being propagated. I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant venue. They will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re all like, “I don’t want to work. I just want a free Obama Phone, or whatever.” And that becomes an entire narrative that gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress, which is much more typical — who is raising a couple of kids and doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.
And so, if we’re going to change how Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like. And how budgets connect to that. And that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news.
After seven failed years, to watch Obama sit there and discuss the poor as though he is part of the solution and not the problem, is laughable.
And let’s not forget that Obama knows nothing about poverty. He has lived a privileged life.
Obama attended prep schools as a child, lived with his well-to-do grandparents in Honolulu as a teen, where he attended Panahou, a fancy private school. Both of his grandparents were well educated; she even worked as the vice president of a bank. For a time, Obamahad a nanny! From there Obama attended Occidental College in California, was well off enough to visit Pakistan for 3 weeks; he then attended two of the most prestigious colleges in the country: Columbia and Harvard.
The closest Obama has ever come to experiencing anything close to poverty was during his time as a community organizer in Chicago. And in that dynamic, the poor were just pawns for Obama to manipulate to achieve his political ambitions.
Obama knows nothing of struggle, or what life is like for those who do. And after 7 years of his failed economic policies, we also know he doesn’t give a damn enough about the poor to change his policies in a way that might actually help them.
Obama likes poor people fine — he likes them dependent on the government.
He also likes the news media to do what it’s told.
Obama doesn’t care about the poor. As Nolte says, he has nothing in common with them. They are simply pawns in a chess game to accomplish Marxist goals that he has had planned forever. If Obama can control the media and outlets that actually distribute real news, a la Venezuela or Cuba, he can control the people. Right now he is controlling everything a dictator needs: food, shelter, money supply, military and the media – that isn’t a Constitutional Republic… that is tyranny. And Obama is not alone – he has Progressive allies on both sides of the political aisle helping him. Obama is acting daily more and more like a fascist king and no one is stopping him effectively. After censoring the news, can martial law be far behind, I wonder.
BY RUDY TAKALA
(CNSNews.com) – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) member Ajit Pai said over the weekend that he foresees a future in which federal regulators will seek to regulate websites based on political content, using the power of the FCC or Federal Elections Commission (FEC). He also revealed that his opposition to “net neutrality” regulations had resulted in personal harassment and threats to his family.
Speaking on a panel at the annual “Right Online” conference in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, Pai told audience members, “I can tell you it has not been an easy couple of months personally. My address has been publicly released. My wife’s name, my kids’ names, my kids’ birthdays, my phone number, all kinds of threats [have come] online.”
Pai, one of two Republicans on the five-member FCC, has been an outspoken critic of net neutrality regulations passed by the agency on Feb. 26. The rules, which are set to take effect on June 12, reclassify Internet providers as utilities and command them not to block or “throttle” online traffic.
However, Pai said it was only the beginning. In the future, he said, “I could easily see this migrating over to the direction of content… What you’re seeing now is an impulse not just to regulate the roads over which traffic goes, but the traffic itself.”
Continuing, he said, “It is conceivable to me to see the government saying, ‘We think the Drudge Report is having a disproportionate effect on our political discourse. He doesn’t have to file anything with the FEC. The FCC doesn’t have the ability to regulate anything he says, and we want to start tamping down on websites like that.’”
In February, Pai co-authored an editorial with former FEC Chairman Lee Goodman that warned of efforts by those agencies to regulate content online.
“Is it unthinkable that some government agency would say the marketplace of ideas is too fraught with dissonance? That everything from the Drudge Report to Fox News… is playing unfairly in the online political speech sandbox? I don’t think so,” Pai said.
“The First Amendment means not just the cold parchment that’s in the Constitution. It’s an ongoing cultural commitment, and I sense that among a substantial number of Americans and a disturbing number of regulators here in Washington that online speech is [considered] a dangerous brave new world that needs to be regulated,” he concluded.
‘Billions and Billions’ to Subsidize Internet Service
In comments to CNSNews.com, Pai also talked about the FCC’s finances, the imposition of taxes on Internet usage, and subsidies for Internet service.
The reclassification of Internet providers as utilities allows the FCC to impose what is known as a “Universal Service Fund” (USF) tax on their revenue. The USF has grown exponentially in recent years, and presently stands at $12 billion annually – so large that the FCC has requested it be allowed to transfer $25 million of the money to its own budget to “administer” the fund. As a result, some in Congress have proposed limiting the size of the USF to $9 billion.
Pai did not specify where he believed the cap should stand, but he said the recent growth of the fund necessitated a limit going forward.
“I think it should be lower than what a majority of the FCC wants it to be… Whatever it is, there has to be a cap. What we’ve found is that USF funding has exploded over the past couple of years so that the USF tax is 67 percent higher than it was in 2009,” he said.
Pai said that proposals to expand certain programs funded by the USF could cost billions. “We should stop making promises in terms of expanding the Lifeline program, expanding the E-Rate program that need to be paid for. Otherwise that $9 billion cap is going to be insufficient.”
Lifeline, commonly known as the “Obama Phone” program, subsidizes phone usage for low-income individuals. E-Rate subsidizes broadband access for schools and libraries.
Continuing, Pai said, “Broadband service is a lot more expensive than phone service. Right now, the Lifeline phone subsidy is only $9.95. Imagine how expensive it’s going to have to be to really subsidize people’s broadband service.
“Secondly, people are a lot more interested in broadband than in traditional phone service these days. For those two reasons, I think the price could be exorbitant – billions and billions of dollars,” he said.
CNSNews.com also asked Pai to describe his position on the budget request submitted by the FCC to Congress this year.
“We should deny funding for some of the things the FCC wants to spend money on. Any funds, for example, to enforce these net neutrality regulations, [and] this shift of $25 million from the Universal Service Fund to the FCC itself in order to pursue its own policy priorities – I think we need to do more with less. I don’t think we’re doing that by asking for a much higher budget,” Pai said.
Pai concluded by saying the FCC was attempting to do less with more.
“If you look at how busy we actually are, we were much busier in 1996 in the wake of the ‘96 Telecomm Act. At that point, in today’s dollars, we had a budget of $277 million. Now the FCC is asking for almost $400 million even though we’re not as busy as we were then. I think it’s safe to say we could do with what we’ve got now if not less,” he said.
In the wake of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s comments that President Barack Obama does not love America, White House press secretary Josh Earnest was pressed if Obama “regrets” making comments in the same vein about former President George W. Bush.
During the Friday W.H. briefing, Fox News’ Ed Henry asked Earnest if Obama harbors regrets for calling Bush “unpatriotic” for adding over $4 trillion to the debt during his presidency during the 2008 presidential campaign.
“Do you think the president has any regrets about saying President Bush was unpatriotic for adding $4 trillion to the debt?” Henry pressed Earnest.
“I don’t know sorrow is the word that I would use,” Earnest said.
“You said you feel sorry for Rudy Giuliani,” Henry responded, to which Earnest affirmed. ”But as a candidate, Sen. Obama said that President Bush was unpatriotic.”
“I have not seen the actual comments,” Earnest said, asking if Henry had them at his fingertips.
“He said that the president, and I’m paraphrasing this part, added about $4 trillion to the debt, and then he said ‘that’s irresponsible, that’s unpatriotic,” Henry told Earnest. “So I see a difference from Giuliani because he’s talking about an issue, but nonetheless, questioning the patriotism of the President of the United States.”
“I think what the president was doing was he was questioning the specific wisdom wisdom of that decision, and questioning whether or not that was in the best interest of the country,” Earnest said.
“He said it was unwise, he said that’s unpatriotic,” Henry shot back.
“But again, he’s talking about that, he was not talking about a person,” Earnest said.
“Again, there is a lot that the president had to say in the State of the Union about the level of our discourse,” Earnest said. “There is no doubt that we will have significant disagreements across the aisle. That is ultimately why democracy is all about, where we go in and debate issues.”
“But the president, as you recall, in the State of the Union said that we should have a debate that’s worthy of the United States Congress and worthy of the country,” Earnest continued. “That there are significant challenges facing this country, resorting to a politics in which we question each other’s basic decency is not consistent with the reason that a lot of people got into public service.”
By Robert Gehl, February 17, 2015.
Saying terms like “radical Islam” and “Islamic extremism” is pointless, Attorney General Eric Holder said today, so why use those terms?
Breitbart.com is reporting that he said there is not a lot gained by saying “radical Islam” or “Islamic extremism” in reference to terrorist attacks committed by Muslims.
The White House this week is hosting a summit on “violent extremism.” A summit where those two terms are banned.
“We spend more time talking about what do you call it as opposed to what do you do about it,” he said.
Then – because when you don’t call ISIS “radical Islam,” you have more time on your hands – he took the time to criticize Fox News because they think Islamic Extremists should be called Islamic Extremists.
“Really, if Fox didn’t talk about this they would have nothing else to talk about, it would seem to me,” he said.
Ultimately, Holder said he is “not sure an awful lot is gained” by saying the words “radical Islam” or “Islamic extremism” in reference to Islamic terror attacks. The Attorney General said the “terminology has little or no impact on what ultimately we have to do” regarding military policy.
“I don’t worry an awful about what the appropriate terminology is,” he said. “Really, we’re having this conversation about words as opposed to what are actions ought to be?”